and so it goes on.
do as i say, not as i do.
poor iran, met some lovely folks from that part of the world.
still, at least the boss gets to play on facebook, right?
Iran is a nation known for its heavy-handed censorship of the internet, but it is still possible to access Facebook from within its borders – particularly, that is, if you happen to be the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Ayatollah set up his new Facebook profile on Friday, and it has already garnered …
"do as I say not as I do" is surely the only sensible mantra for leadership since leaders are human and invariably as flawed as the rest of us. "Do as I do" is never going to get us anywhere.
I have to disagree with you there. If you require specific behaviours from your peasants then you should damned well toe the same line yourself. This should apply at least doubly for religious leaders as the behaviour required is quite often made up by those same leaders. "Tee Hee it doesn't apply to me because I'm important" makes me puke. Fuck every single one of the hypocritical bastards...and by that I mean every single person who abuses power and doesn't think that the law applies to them.
I am a thoroughly modern mullah. I can forgive Lady Gaga, Madonna and Barack Obama for their unfortunate behaviour. Israel are OK, if a little feisty sometimes. And bacon really is delicious... But LOLCatz now? They are the infidel works of Satan and must be destroyed!
I have issued a fatwa,
Now blow up a cat. Ha!
That'll learn Satan's furry bleeders
Not to mess with Supreme Leaders.
Don't knock it, Islam apparently teaches that cats are special, and you should be kind to them. Mohammed has a special fondness for a cat called Muezza. According to the Koran, Mohammed was late for the mosque one day, as his cat Muezza was sleeping on his prayer robes, so he got a knife and cut of the arm of the robe (yes, the robe) so that he wouldn't disturb his beloved cat from its sleep.
So I would imagine that our friendly ayatollah looks has already liked loads of cat-related websites.
Don't forget to add Mitt Romney, and the Democratic and Republican National Committees in that list, along with Ricky Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and all the other RepubliCLOWN wanna-be candidates in that list... Of course, putting Michelle and Sarah in there might create some problems for him...
Its easy to mock this, criticize this, etc. It gets a bit silly (IMO) if you don't know the 'other' side of the story.
For all we know he's checking the whole thing out as an evaluation of the mentioned ban. I dunno, it sure wouldn't surprise me tbh.
I'm getting a little tired of this continuous "evil country" kind of thing; Iran, China, etc. All "evil". And only because we don't agree with the way they run their country just like they don't agree with our view of the world. I thought that we were the civilized side though; the ones who could reason like "live and let live".
When it comes to evil or not I think the population to be the only party capable to address that issue. So far a lot of Iranian people I came across with (in the good old days on CeBIT for example; when it was much bigger than it was now) they wouldn't dream of defecting and not ever going back to Iran.
Also a one-sided story, sure, but if the population /really/ set their minds on something they can enforce a change. Look at Egypt (though the results may not be what people expected), or look at former Eastern Germany.
So instead of approaching this move with lots of disdain and mockery, why not simply try to be positive and agree that we don't agree.
Here we go with the idiotic analogies again.
If you have to use an attempt at an "analogy", it very likely means you haven't the faintest about what's being discussed, so why not make a little use of your two ears instead of your one mouth?
For your simplistic, Twitter-era attention span: No, ShelLuser is not saying that. If you're looking for a semi-fitting but equally idiotic "analogy", it's the one of the pædiatrician having "pedo" spray painted on the front of her house. You should be familiar with that one from your regular press.
I agree completely with this:"I'm getting a little tired of this continuous "evil country" kind of thing"
There is no such thing as an "evil country", there's just countries with people in charge who do some terrible things. For the most part, the citizens of Iraq, Iran, N Korea etc are just doing their best to survive in difficult circumstances. When you don't know where the next crust of bread is coming from, you don't get too wrapped up in philosophy, and you better believe what the guy handing out the bread says or there won't be any for you next time.
"I'm getting a little tired of this continuous "evil country" kind of thing; Iran, China, etc. All "evil". And only because we don't agree with the way they run their country just like they don't agree with our view of the world."
Those with this view don't help to feed the countries people, or save them from repressive regimes, regimes that willingly murder their own kind.
You are free to voice your opinions because we have stable society, which our forefathers gave their lives for.
Sorry, repression of the people IS evil.
What about Iranians who do not hold religious beliefs?
I would be living in hell if religious beliefs were to directly affect how we live our lives.
What if the government deemed the iPhone to be the work of the devil? You wouldn’t be able to use your desired piece of tech, because someone else decided that it was the work of the devil.
Your rights being stripped from you by a complete no one because religion says so.
You might want to look into why the Iranians have the regime that they currently do. They wanted to save themselves from a repressive regime that willingly murdered their own kind, desecrated their religion and acted as a puppet for the west.
Instead they wanted a stable society based upon their Islamic beliefs, completely isolated from western influence. Apart from that choice, they are no more "evil" than any of their near neighbours. There is far more religious freedom in Tehran than in Riyadh for example.
"You might want to look into why the Iranians have the regime that they currently do....." Oh boy, I 'm just betting you're about to display an immense hole in your historic knowledge.
"......They wanted to save themselves from a repressive regime that willingly murdered their own kind, desecrated their religion and acted as a puppet for the west....." Actually, different groups in Iran had different grievances. What you have outlined is the very narrow perspective of the Islamists. Many Iranians were quite happy with Western influence, even those that protested against the Shah. Many of the original protestors in October 1977 were secular and had no intention whatsoever of implementing an Islamic theocracy. The Jebhe Melli (Iranian National Front), for example, was a secular group that was an active political party, opposed the Shah, but wanted to have a secular , monarchistic democracy with free elections. The Jebhe Melli was forced into a coallition with the Islamists led by Khomeini, with Khomeini lying to the Jebhe Melli spokesperson Sanjabi in 1978 when he agreed to a secular and democratic model for a future Iran - Khomeini at that point was intent on establishing an Islamic theocracy with only the mildest of democratic pretentions. Khomeoni made it clear in 1981 after the Revolution when he strong-armed through parliament the Sharia-based Law of Retribution (Qisas), publicly berated the Jebhe Melli as "unislamic" when they opposed it, and eventually had them outlawed in 1982. The Jebhe Melli leaders had to flee Iran for their lives.
"....Instead they wanted a stable society based upon their Islamic beliefs....." Again, you are just parroting the Islamist view. There were plenty of non-Islamic protestors and revolutionaries, it's just their views got ignored and later oppressed by the Islamists. A bit like what we're seeing in Libya and Egypt right now.
Obviously! you have been consuming too much Holywood material. All the telltale expressions: complete with "our forefathers", "gave their lives for", "regimes" (and "oppressive" at that). Even got the product placement right with that iPhone™ mention. Well done indeed!
ShelLuser, would I be right in assuming that you have travelled far and wide and seen things that most Westerners have not only not seen, but even refuse to believe they could exist?
I have the impression I know exactly where you are coming from, and wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment.
It's Christmas and this Englishman's thoughts drift to traditional festive films.
It reminds me of the scene in 'The Great Escape' as two escapees board a bus an SS Officer wishes them a good journey in English, then promptly arrests them when they reply in English.
You're right. But a trap set by which country's authorities? I don't fancy your chances of getting a visa for the kids trip to Disneyland Florida if you've had a few beers and clicked "like" for the Ayatollah.
Having said that, serve everybody involved right for having anything to do with Farsebook.
"EVERYONE lives by double standards.
And are you saying hypocrisy is a mental illness?"
No. I'm saying religious belief is a mental illness!
Sorry there is not an all seeing, all powerful, mystical creature living in the clouds controlling everything, let alone a son!
When will human kind realise that religion is a story, and those stupid enough to believe it need to have their head seeing too.
In Hadith, Prophet Muhammad says:
"Three are the signs of a hypocrite: When he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is trusted, he betrays his trust even if he observes Fasting, performs prayers and claims to be a believer.''
In another Hadith, Prophet Muhammad says:
"Four are the qualities which, when found in a person, make him a sheer hypocrite, and one who possesses one of them, possesses one characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it. These are: When he is entrusted with something, he betrays trust; when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he acts treacherously; and when he argues, he behaves in a very imprudent, insulting manner.''
Hypocrisy is a disagreement between heart and tongue.
Hypocrisy is a discrepancy between word and deed.
Here we see that the Ayatollah is a hypocrite, not worthy to lead a nation's religious observances, much less its secular existence.
Although I suppose I could research the answer myself, but is Facebook "banned" (by which I take it actually means "blocked") because the Iranian people or government don't like it (in which case at least they show good taste, if I may say) or because of the various embargoes against Iran?
Funny thing about those embargoes is that even though they're enacted by someone else, it's often the receiving party that's left in charge of enforcing them (I never could quite get my head around that).
So, is this a "ban" in the same way we could say Google Code is "banned" in Iran?
Anyway, I'm very suspicious of these sort of claims. I'm the one who caught Amnesty International in a flagrant lie when they claimed their website was being blocked by authorities in Saudi Arabia. I had read that on their own website, from within Saudi Arabia, going through a local ISP. Interestingly, AI never saw fit replying to me when I wrote asking for clarification, nor did they see fit rectifying their assertions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019